This had been on my mind for a while. In short, I think we need a better/standardized convention for signaling when a player is open to suggestions or not.

Currently our policy is to not post in request threads that are not your own, unless you are given permission by the poster. This is, to my knowledge, done for the ease of the DMs as to not have to have players who are not involved in the request clutter it up. Empirically, decisions regarding requests do boil down to an agreement between the DM team and the player making the request. So it makes sense to not have to not have to debate with a third party who has no "skin in the game" to speak. But it often benefits players to have outside input many times. A player can of course always PM a peer making a request.

How it often works:

>"Hey, the DMs probably think that your request for a Spell Widget isn't tenable because your PC lacks a caster class. But you're asking for a spell already available from in game items; perhaps try requesting it as an item."
>"Yo, it's not exactly what you requested, but I recall 4 years ago this custom feat/spell was made. Maybe you could request this and save the devs time and yourself some DCs."
>"I think they're more concerned about where a PC like the one you're requesting would 'fit' into the setting. There was a PC run faction that had dealings with these guys a while back. Try using that as a background; using established groups and locations will help manage expectations for both of you."

And that's great. It works, trust me. A lot of times DMs are(often rightfully) slow to suggest alternatives to avoid influencing a player's request. You should--in a perfect world--be asking for something because it fits your roleplay/gameplay and it's what you want. Not because you believe it is what the DM team would want. That's where players who may have experience or insight can give a helping hand. They've got no influence over whether your request is approved or not, so there's little pressure to take a suggestion you don't feel is in line with your goals.

The problems with this method are:

>Sending a suggestion via PM and/or asking to have permission to post are an extra step when the thread is right there.
>A majority of the time when DMs get on people for posting in a request that isn't theirs, the OP just comes in and says it's fine for them to continue posting anyway.
>DMs cannot see these helpful nudges unless they get reposted.
>Often a player commenting was involved in the crafting or development RP and simply wants to vouch for or contribute information, but the OP has not specifically stated for them to comment.

The policy stems from 2014, a time when we were admittedly going through some changes as a server. Before then, request threads were as open as any other for the most part. This is not to say that we should "go back," but that policy often changes to reflect the needs of our playerbase. We've seen it regarding DC sharing, public DC funds, freebie requests, and so on. Maybe after the better half of a decade, it's time to reevaluate if this policy is suiting us as best it can. To be candid, people generally aren't breaking this rule with bad intent or to the OPs detriment and it seems, more often, a sort of prescriptive wrist-slap. We didn't have the rule pre-2014 because we didn't need it. We had the rule post-2014 because we needed it. Now, it may be fair to revisit the need for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A humble suggestion re: er... suggestions, in the meanwhile.

OTPS and OTPC

Open To Player Suggestion and Open To Player Comment. Two tags that players can use either in the title of their request or in the body of the thread to let both players and DMs know what's up.

OTPS is just what it says on the tin. Open to player suggestions. Not grandstanding. Not speaking against the request. Not railing against current standards for requests or saying "you guys woulda approved this in 201X"(... I'm including this mainly for myself, mind you). But a suggestion. The player has an idea of what they want, but they are open to finagling with it to make it work. A player is therefor invited to make a single(1), concise suggestion regarding the request. I.E. Drow is a good substitute race for representing a Yaun-Ti Pureblood. Here's how their stats compare.

OTPC is a bit more involved. Maybe this is a thread involving an entire faction or party of PCs. Maybe OP is genuinely looking for feedback on their idea from more than just the DM team. In any case, this tag is to signal that the OP is fine with people commenting because they may still be in the earlier stages of formulating the request. The thread therefore serves as an easier medium to communicate through than endless PMs or Discord where the discussion would have to be screenshotted over or something to be in the record of the request. To that end, comments should still be on topic, concise, and ideally not outnumber the OP's posts. It is still their request, afterall.

Both OTPS and OTPC can be further modified with shorthand to let everyone know the deal. I.E. [OTPC: Riptides], saying hey, anyone from the Riptides is invited to comment here. Or [OTPS: Devs], because you're not familiar with the game engine and what is or isn't possible. The default ruling remains the same: if you see neither OTPS or OTPC in either the title or body of a thread that isn't yours, assume no help is needed. Even so, you still have PMs if you really want to tell the player something and they can always come in and add either tag to the body of the thread later, if they want the help.

_________________

I've seen a fair of notes like this in the requests themselves. And personally, I stalk requests. At the very least, I tend to have read the requests by people I know, and I enjoy reading random requests. Most cases, especially ones where player input is desired, the notes are there: Alignment change requests come to mind, crafting generally is open for the crafters, lots of faction stuff is open to faction members. The problem, generally, comes up more when there's something like you suggested at the beginning: "hey, but this precedent". Which is entirely up to OP to bring up said points.

All in all, putting the discussion into PMs, Discord, or any other way of talking other than requests leaves the request to be evaluated without any discussion. In an ideal world, every request would simply get a "yes" from the DMs. Players wouldn't request anything that isn't feasible, players would write up such great requests that the DMs are happy with granting it, everything. Basically, nothing other than a "yes" required.
Sadly, the world isn't ideal. Requests get posted with too little RP for the DMs. Requests get posted that the DMs don't feel fit into the setting, a couple of things. This, effectively, eats up the teams time. It's not exactly a bad thing, after all, it's a byproduct of being able to request just about anything, and having someone read through it all and possibly approve it. However, it also means that every discussion beyond it is effectively clutter.

I'll give an example of a case where I had a suggestion for a DC item. It was a book, and there was a tlk about how you could explain the book being unable to be copied. I suggested that perhaps a slight variaton of Illusory script could be used. It's bending the exact words, but I wanted to help. At least to provide a spell that does something similar. So, I PM'd the player in question. They answered back, a little talking. I don't think they ended up using my suggestion, but anyway. That was basically two or three posts the DMs, in the end, didn't really have to read.

In my own request a while back, where I requested a reskin, I talked to a few people, and looked through the toolset. In total, I thought for a while about which skin I felt fit best for the thing I was requesting. Shocker Lizards usually walk on their hind legs, but T-rex model didn't look... exactly how I pictured it. Which portrait. Which base animal... I talked to a few people for their input. In the end, rather than putting all that discourse in, all I put in was: Please use this model, resized, with this portrait. I think it fits because: 1. 2. 3.
In the end, if you're unsure about which subrace to use to emulate something, and you invite player suggestion into the topic itself, there's one person that's going to suggest one subrace, another might sufggest another, and maybe a third suggesting a third subrace entirely. On the other hand, keeping it to PMs leaves the player requesting in the power to word his request however he wants. If he gets three suggestions, he can either suggest the one he finds most fitting, or show all three, and write his preference. One post, by the OP, without all the discussion why something else mgiht fit as well. And that's generally how I see the rule. It cuts out the discussion, leaving it to a place where the OP can choose to word it however he wants.


And if you personally want everyone to be able to comment, in theory, there's nothing from stopping you to write that into your own request. As people tend to do, in cases where it befits the request.

DI, your suggestion is already in place because of: "unless you are given permission by the poster".
This enables the poster of said request, or DMs, to specify if, and/or who, is able to post in said request.

_________________

Not exactly, by my reckoning. It's not that you can't currently post in others threads when giving permission. It's that the guideline generally gets invoked after it's already been been breached.

What I mainly seek to avoid is the song and dance of:

*OP makes a request*
*Players makes a comment*
*DM fusses at player for making comment*
*OP says it is fine, business continues as usual*

My suggestion is simply saying, yo, if you mean to make use of this clause, here's a quick way to signal it. Just something to get in the habit of, to avoid extra steps in PMing for permission or DMs cracking the whip due to misunderstandings. I will back up that I have seen what Robbi is talking about. The suggestion is more or less to make it easier to see for all parties.

_________________

The signal is given by the poster of the request, or a DM, in the original post. The breaching is usually done by people who already know the rule, and they're simply ignoring it, thus the frustration of DMs.

If you're reading the request, it's as simple as um.. reading the request, if you're permitted or not, to post.

_________________

What is also very saddening 'and' frustrating to us is if people "abuse" donating DC to circumvent said rule. "Hey have 1 DC, btw *gives elaborate opinion that has nothing to do with anything*" <.< and yes, that has happened quite frequently. I suppose in the end it still is nice for the OP to get some funding, if it is needed, since it happened quite a few times with requests that didn't even require DC, alas it is still quite frustrating and not the purpose of donations.

_________________

Here's the thing, though. That seems to be the general stance of the DM team and as I stated, I can see the logic in it. DMs aren't reading requests to debate arguments that aren't actually being made by the OP or "comments from the peanut gallery" as one previous steward put it.

But. And this is crucial. This seems almost exclusively to frustrate the DMs. Not the player making the request. Usually, it's someone whose input the OP gladly welcomes. The only difference between those *elaborate opinions* being kosher or not is OP saying in the thread that they're okay with them. DMs would still have to read those opinions in a perfect world where every 3rd party opinion got initial permission from the poster.

You have a situation where the refs are getting frustrated from having to call "foul" so often, because the two players involved aren't even seeing it as one. So, it begs discussion of that rule. Otherwise, it seems like one of those things that are just going to fester until both DMs are player are equally exasperated. This is a chance to "check in" on everyone's expectations before DM-paddles are broken out.

Edit: I guess my question for DMs is this. Do you more often find yourself having to enforce this rule because the the comments are actually distracting or because an OP forgot to signal that others are welcome to post?

_________________

Let's put it this way, if the OP hasn't put anywhere to call upon certain people to come along, and someone comes along and either:

- Gives a DC donation with a little message
- Offers their confirmation of the events
- Provides additional evidence for them

We're not going to hard enforce it.

However if people:

- Give a DC donation with an inappropriate message
- Start talking to the DMs like its their request if it's not
- Use the thread to refute a DM claim and potentially derail (you can just PM us this to save the thread from getting disorganised)
- Add in random quips for no reason

Then we've got to put our foot down because it can derail the thread, clutter it up or sometimes cause unneeded arguments when the OP and team were having their discussion.

But to answer your question: I don't see us at all often having to enforce it because OP forgot to signal others, it's normally because people do one of the four examples above.

_________________

There really is a big difference wether "putside input" is helpful or not.

What is helpful:
Confirming events that are relevant to the request.
For example and especially alignment change requests, racial development requests. requests that require teacher and the teacher replies (flight, Shadow jump, 1000 faces) etc.
In these cases we often even ask for players who interacted with said chara to chime in. Or the OP does.

What is not helpful:
General outbursts of random people towards criticism or questions from the DMs.
Randomly stating an (for the request) irrelevant opinion "yeah x should have that because I think it's cool!"
Random spurs of feeling they know the balance better than the peope doing the balance "but I feel this is not too strong!"

These are just most common examples.

The "non helpful" things do not add to or further the request process. On contrary, they derail the process because the DM have to dig through all the extra posts to see if they are of relevance, only to find out they have nothing to really add to the request. So in the end it slows things down because the DMs have to wade through much more text to figure out what is even wanted and what the current status is.

_________________

This.

We all want a smooth request process, players and DMs alike.

The easier it is to get to the actual request, the better. Being derailed by folks with well-meaning (or not so well-meaning... intentionally or unintentionally) banter in a request thread just doesn't help.

_________________
Cassie - Cheerful, glitter obsessed fey
Nada - Tomboy monk
Samina - Druid, still finding her way

I can say that from my experience when I was a DM, requests that had multiple other players adding input to the request generally increased the time it took to get approved because parts or the entire request changed multiple times or asked about making potential changes that required a whole new round of deliberation from the DM team, basically "resetting" the process that was already made on the request.

BUT that is no different than when a player does that on their own without input from others, it simply happened more frequently than if a player made alterations on asked questions on their own. So this is also bound to happen if someone sends a suggestion to the player in a PM or other media.

As others have stated above, having multiple people involved in a request and having it constantly change or people discussing things there is a point of frustration and makes the whole thing more complicated than it has to be. If you want a fast and expedient request, handle all of that before putting it up for approval.

Ask for input from people you know or that might have experience on the thing you're requesting before you finalize it. If it's a complicated one, having input from friends or someone proofread it to check your lore or whatever will help you avoid pitfalls or an excessive approval time due to all of that being done mid request, I've gotten questions or requests from other players that I both knew and/or played with and some that I didn't when they were writing up requests that involved topics I was in the know on, and generally, I was happy to help and I'm sure the same goes for the majority of the playerbase. For instance, if I were to make a request pertaining to say, a new palemaster character, I'd check in with people that have experience with the class or the lore surrounding it before finalizing it and putting it up for approval. Basically, don't just post your first draft of the request, spend some time with it and flesh it out first, do the research etc.

After that try to be precise and concise in the request itself and it generally will be approved much faster than if you have input from players or a whole Q&A situation AFTER you create the request. There is such a thing as too much information just as there can be too little, try to include everything that's relevant and always include links to source material that's relevant. This way it's much faster for you as the one making the request, and easier for the DMs and in my experiences increases the likelyhood of fast DM inputs and chance of getting it approved, so it's a win-win for everyone. Plus it makes it really easy for players down the line if they dig for information on requests that are similar to one they might make, because there's less clutter.


I think the main reason for this, is that DMs know that having all of that done mid request will extend the workload involved with the request and increase the time it takes for the request to go from start to finish by quite a bit. I don't think most players realize that. Requests that take a long time to get approved generally do so for one of three reasons. 1. Timing, not much that can be done to prevent that. 2. Complicated request and added time generally comes with the territory here. 3. Having a whole discussion about the request involving multiple players + DMs. So I figure, why not prevent reason nr#3 entirely by handling that BEFORE posting it? It's something I generally try to do and it massively cut down the time my requests spent to get approved to like 3 days to a week.

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer

Back when I was still DM and handling requests we actually just added the no posting in others requests and it helped a ton in being to navigate and have other less active DMs check the topic. Since requests that have 60 replies is not something we want to invest into reading at times, say after a long event or even just a long day of RL, and it would harm the quality of our opinions because we'd just get shorthanded answers and not very much real input. Having fewer people posting in the topic helped get real answers from the staff vs "No" "Yes" or a quote from another DM showing they agree with that person.

That said I highly supported the collaboration and would even pull people into MSN/Skype groups so we can talk about the requests and such live and detailed. That helped tremendously more than PMs and some of the people I did that with to this day even will message me on Discord so we can discuss with a small group to better make that first request post.

Now Discord is open for all already and if others now wish to talk about requests, send me a message sometime. I'll be happy to give input before you make your official post. Maybe we can even benefit from a Forum topic or subforum that is literally for request discussion and collaboration. Nothing in that forum will count for a request until it is structured and posted properly in the Request forum.

_________________

Thanks for the replies, both current and former DMs. I think that helps players better understand where you're coming from on this. Reading requests is definitely a task already. And well-meaning or not, any reply that gets posted in the thread must be read to make sure the team isn't missing anything. That's something that helps both parties down the line, to make sure things aren't overlooked. The last thing you want is to have both player and DM thinking two different versions of the same request are being approved. And that becomes a lot easier the more information that gets added to the thread.

I also think everyone can realize that no one is intentionally attempting to derail any of these threads. Especially when you consider that the people commenting with DC contributions are still contributing DCs in the end. It's something they care enough about to chuck something that represents some of their own RP-work and time on the server. Not that that justifies it, but it should give perspective. Most don't care about making a quip at a DM or disagreeing with them enough to use up DCs to do it--they could just make a thread if it was that important. I don't think this sort of thing is happening maliciously or snarkily. And it didn't really feel like it was an issue of the player giving permission for other players to comment in their thread. I.E. if OP gives permission to another player to comment and they go on a 3 paragraph rant about breakfast cereal, the DMs would still likely not be pleased, yeah? I think that's where the difference of expectations was happening. Players read it and see "It's okay to comment, so long as I know the player is cool with it" meanwhile DMs, having to deal with the actual content of those comments, are expecting something else.

It just struck me as something that needed to actually be talked about, even if just for understanding's sake, rather than thumping a finger to the book as it were. I think players can understand that even if they're trying to help, additional comments can lead to complicating their friend's request... which is obviously counterproductive if you're offering DCs to the effort. Meanwhile, I think DMs can realize when it's honestly just a case of misplaced enthusiasm than actual contempt for their job or intentional derailment.

_________________

I'd say we usually do realize that the posts made were not made to intentionally derail the topic. In most cases we do really give people the benefit of doubt here and merely tell them to not do it again. We very rarely really punish people for it. If we do, then it is because it clearly is intentional trolling, or someone keeps doing it over and over again despite having been asked not to.

I hope you do us the same curtesy and also give us that same benefit of doubt and think again if maybe the DM pointing this out might have had a reason to do so.

Those reasons usually could be:

- While the poster may not realize it, it may actually inf act be derailing the topic and adds nothing positive to it for the OP that isn't known or there already.

- Sometimes the OP contacts us in PMs, telling us that they are not comfortable with players posting in their request, but not wanting to say so in public, because they are worried it might backlash at them. Be also aware, those players may tell you in game that they did not actually mind, for the reason mentioned.

- The rarest case, the DM simply had a bad day and was annoyed someone posted again without (seemingly) having been asked to and lashed out. We aren't perfect, it can happen, but I dare say I very rarely see that happen if a post actually was helpful in a way of confirming RP or something like that. If it happens, bring it up to the team id you feel an apology is due, though be aware, while you may have gotten a little slap on the finger, as mentioned at the beginning of my post, there very rarely actually any real punishments happening unless something serious was going on.


Edit:
Just in case it wasn't clear, i use "you" as a neutral term! I am not speaking of anyone in specific!

_________________

I tend to look at the requests board as a mysterious gypsy woman who occasionally gives me gifts if I appease her and don't make any sudden moves.

_________________

Gerald Edmund
Discord: Metal Viking Guy #5433

DC taxation is theft!

If you have a comment about a player's request, I advise sending a PM just for the sake of simplicity and getting your point across more directly. Just easier on everyone, that way. I used to occasionally drop people a PM when I thought I had worthwhile advice to give, before I was a DM.